Chanan Mal vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on July 22, 1988 at about 2.00 p.m. Gori Shankar P.W. sat near the wall for urinating. Chanan Mal accused came from the house of Jhandu with a ''Farsi'' in his hand. He gave ''Farsi'' blows on the head and chest of Gori Shankar and ran to the house of the said Jhandu. He raised alarm. His son Raj Kumar was attracted to the spot. In the meantime, Jai Singh and Devi Lal accused had also arrived at the spot. They gave Lathi blows to Raj Kumar. One of the Lathi blows fell on the left occipital region of Raj Kumar and the other lathi blow fell on his left shoulder. Molu and Chuni accused armed with Lathies also came there. They also dealt Lathi blows on Gori Shankar. On Raula being raised, accused Sat Pal also came to the spot armed with a lathi. He also dealt lathis blows to Raj Kumar. The occurrence was witnessed by Tara Chand and Hari Kishan.

On July 21, 1998 Sat Pal, accused and Ram Niwas had an altercation with Raj Kumar injured. The accused kept the grudge unto themselves.

Gori Shankar reported the matter to the police vide statement Exhibit PA on July 23, 1998 at 5.30 p.m., on the basis of which case F.I.R. No. 247 was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar under Sections 326/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, Chanan Mal etc. accused were challaned.

Accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

On the conclusion of the trial, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar found charges under Sections 326/324 of the Indian Penal Code proved against Chanan Mal accused. He also found charge under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code proved against Jai Singh, Devi Lal, Molu and Sat Pal accused. Chuni accused died during the trial and as such trial abated qua him. He convicted Chanan Mal under Sections 326/324 of the Indian Penal Code and Jai Singh, Devi Lal, Molu and Sat Pal under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide his order dated January 7, 1997. Vide order dated January 8, 1997, he sentenced Chanan Mal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and under Section 324 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He sentenced Jai Singh, Devi Lal, Molu and Sat Pal under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. Chanan Mal etc. convicts went to appeal to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dismissed the appeal of Chanan Mal and maintained conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Magistrate. So far as Jai Singh etc. are concerned, they were not found vicariously liable for the acts of Chanan Mal and, therefore, they were convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code only for the simple injuries caused to Raj Kumar P.W. with lathies. He sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, vide order dated July 21, 1998.

Not satisfied with the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar dated July 21, 1998 (wrongly given as July 13, 1998 in revision), Chanan Mal has come up in Criminal Revision to this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been 27 hours delay in the lodging of the First Information Report. Place of occurrence is at a distance of 20 kilometres from the Police Station. Hospital is at a distance of two kilometres from the Police Station. Raj Kumar P.W. could conveniently report the matter to the police forthwith as he had suffered insignificant injuries. Suffice it to say, Raj Kumar P.W. was attending on his father. How could he leave his father unattended and report the matter to the police. Police recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital on receipt of rukka from the hospital.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are injuries on the accused side also which have not been explained by the prosecution. He submitted that nonexplanation of the injuries of the accused side will impinge upon the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Suffice it to say, simple/superficial injuries on the accused side were not required to be explained by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Gori Shankar and Raj Kumar did not go to the Government hospital. They chose Jindal hospital which was hospital of their choice. Suffice it to say, the doctor found following injuries on the person of Gori Shankar :

Incised wound of size 6 cm. x 2.5 cm over left parietal region, the underlying bone was exposed and corresponding fissure fracture of the same bone was visible. Xray skull AP Lateral was showing fracture of left parietal bone.

Incised wound extending obliquely over left side of chest from sternum at the level of second to fourth rib. The third rib was having incised mark over the costochondral region.

He found the following injuries on the person of Raj Kumar :

A lacerated wound 40 cm. x 1.5 cm present in front of the left pinna. There is no fresh bleeding present. There is evidence of pus in the wound. The margins are whitish in look.

Complaining of pain in the left shoulder. There is no swelling of the joint and no marks of external injury. Can move the limbs.

Complaining of pain in the left hip. No swelling. No marks of external injury. Can move the limb in all the directions normally.

It is not believable that there were no injuries on the person of Gori Shankar and Raj Kumar and the doctor gave them false certificates. Doctor found incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm over left parietal region of Gori Shankar. The underlying bone was exposed and corresponding fissure fracture of the bone was visible. Xray AP lateral showed fracture of left parietal bone. There was another incised wound extending obliquely over the left side of chest from sternum at the level of second and fourth rib. Both these injuries were grievous in nature. Parietal region and the chest are vital parts. It is not believable that Gori Shankar suffered these injuries on the vital parts of his body through friendly hand. Even otherwise occurrence was not denied by the accused side but the accused side pleaded that the prosecution side was the aggressor. It would bear repetition that simple injuries could always be caused to the accused side by the prosecution side if the prosecution side was caused grievous injuries by so many accused.

The learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence found the charge proved against Chanan Mal. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the appraisal of evidence by the learned Magistrate. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly reappraised the evidence brought on the record. In Revision, this Court will interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the two Courts below if the appreciation of evidence by them is palpably wrong and is not in tune with the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases. Faced with this position, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is too harsh and leans towards being excessive. The petitioner was put on trial before the Magistrate in the year 1988. He remained on trial before the learned Magistrate for over eight years whereafter he was convicted and sentenced. He tried his luck before the Court of Session. His fate hanged in balance for 1 years before the Court of Session whereafter his appeal met failure. It was submitted that the petitioner has, thus, faced the agony of criminal trial for about ten years. It was the duty of the Court to assure the accused speedy trial. If the Court could not assure him speedy trial, atleast, some leniency should be shown to him in the matter of sentence. I also feel that there should be some recompense to the accusedpetitioner for the mental agony which he had been undergoing for the last 10 years due to the vagaries of this criminal trial. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is slashed and, brought down to two years rigorous imprisonment. Fine imposed under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, will however, remain unaltered together with the sentence which he has been called upon to undergo in default of payment of fine. Sentence imposed upon him under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code will remain unaltered and is maintained. However, the substantive sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently. Entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Gori Shankar injured P.W.

Subject to reduction in the sentence as indicated above, this Criminal Revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.